Argh. I hate DRM

[Kellanved]

A German itunes copycat is selling the "best"(best meaning that they won a grammy equivalent) albums of 2005 for €2 each.
Well, about five of the albums weren't too bad, some even downright good (Rammstein, Juli, Fantastischen Vier, Fettes Brot; others interesting: Mario Barth and Nena), so I considered it a good way to use the promotion coupon I got somewhere a few weeks ago.

But:
1. You need Internet Explorer 5.5+to buy Music on this page. Argh.
2. ActiveX has to be enabled to download music from this page
3. You need Windows Media Player 9+ to download the music
4. For license reasons downloading an album at once is not possible. You have to download the tracks individually. - Great one of the cds had over 40 tracks...
5. Ready? no. "Downloading the license failed". 90 times that popup.
6. A few hundred megabytes of digital garbage that might or might not contain music. Thanks a lot. How long will the customer service need to send me the frigging license? A week? a month?

:grr:

[billyskank]

1. Hear hear.

DRM is inconvenient and has the potential to be very, very evil. And is getting more evil all the time.

Like the way DVDs are encrypted; ostensibly to prevent copying. Except it doesn't, because you can copy a disc verbatim, encryption and all, and still play the copy in a DVD player.

What the encryption is actually meant for is to restrict the means by which you play back the DVD. Any manufacturer of a DVD player buys a licence to implement the CSS decryption needed for playback.

But I don't have a TV, and so I don't have a DVD player. I do want to be able to watch DVDs though on my computer. But I don't use Windows, I use Linux. Fortunately the CSS encryption was very easily cracked, so I use a decryption library that allows me to play back DVDs on my computer. This software is illegal under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), because open source developers cannot get a licence. They can't get a licence both because they can't afford the fee, and also because they would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which is completely incompatible with open source software.

But think about it this way. I have legally purchased all my DVDs, which ought to confer a licence to watch the content. I have not infringed any copyright. But the copyright holders are wanting to control the means by which I watch them!

[Deja Q]

2. Not inconvenient.

To the corporations, that is.

And it is fascism. So how even one elected official can vote FOR it is beyond me. Apart from the greed aspect.

[billyskank]

3. What's more, this isn't a Dem/Repub issue

Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans for pushing this travesty on us. Senator Diane Feinstein is a prominent offender in this regard. And the "Fritz" chip that is supposed to control access in Microsoft's new Trusted Computing architecture is named after former senator Fritz Hollings. :(

[ghostsofgiants]

5. It's a corporate/consumer issue...

And the Democrats are for the most part just as corporate influenced as the Republcans.

[ghostsofgiants]

4. Ugh, don't get me started...

I bought Radiohead's "Hail to the Theif" back when it came out, which is a Copy Controlled cd. I like to rip my cds to my hard drive. I only use the actual cds when I'm travelling. I discover I can't rip it. I was annoyed, but not pissed. So I decide to listen to it straight from the cd. The only way I can do this? Install the proprietary Copy Control player software. I'm slightly more annoyed now. I install it, just so I can listen to the album that I just bought. I start listening to the album and notice something: the software degrades the audio quality, so that a direct line rip won't yeild great results either. Now I'm pissed. I just paid $20 for a fucking cd and I can't even use my computer (which for me, and a lot of people, is the primary entertainment center). Needless to say, I refuse to buy cds marked with that fucking Copy Control logo. And I let those rat bastards know it, too.

[Kellanved]

6. Un-CDs are pure evil

They are a lot more common in Europe; pretty much all "CDs" over here come with a so-called "protection". (technically protected disks are not CDs, as the standard doesn't allow such techniques)

It is a huge "let's screw the honest customer" scheme. The CDs are less durable, don't have the same audio quality and won't play on many players. Transfer to portable players is sometimes only possible with 32 kbps - I won't comment on the quality of those files.
Plus: the "protection" is responsible for a share of the CD's price about equal to the artist's.
I don't see how the guys who are responsible for making an inferior product should be rewarded.

And the real bummer is: the pirates get the music without any trouble/restrictions at all.